13.9% and more in tithes to the Mormon Church than in taxes

1. 60

   warden76posted 12 years ago

   So, Mitt's taxes came out today...paying 13.9% this year. Oddly, he ended up paying more to the Mormon Church than he paid in taxes. Does it seem odd that somebody who has not paid into Social Security for years can comment on ending it? So...thoughts? Is this guy one of you? Do you still support him?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      rcollester3posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If he donated more to Kiwanis or the Red Cross than he paid in Federal Taxes would you still be making this point?

      replyreport
   2. 83

      Marcy Goodfleischposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Members of the Mormon church are also encouraged to donate beyond the 10% amount of tithing. Most members go without two meals one Sunday each month (a fast) and  donate the amount that would be spent on those meals as a 'fast offering,' which is used to help those who need food or shelter in hard times.  There are also donations for mission work, education or other needs. These are all entered under charitable donations at tax time, so donations to the church (any church, for that matter) will not always be 10% of an income. It can be more, or it can be less, if an individual doesn't tithe.  The amount of Income Tax, however, is determined through federal statutes. 
      
      Don't underestimate the generosity of humans to others. While it's true there are some 'greedy' people on Earth, many very wealthy people know they are fortunate and blessed; they give millions of dollars to churches, synagogues, charities and even the government - as seen by the man who wants to donate about $7 million to help restore the Washington Monument.
      
      When we had devastating fires here in Texas last year, donations poured in from everywhere. It heartened those who lost homes, and reinforced again that we are all brothers and sisters on this Earth.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That's all true, and if you read the thread, no one is arguing that Romney shouldn't have donated so much money to his church. His after-tax earnings are his to do with what he wants.
         
         The problem is that donations to churches and charities alone could never even come close to covering all the social, infrastructural, and administrative costs of running a country. And the tax tier for the ultra-wealthy is far too low, and has been too low for a long time, to cover those costs.

         replyreport
2. 63

   Greek Oneposted 12 years ago

   Well, why shouldn't he pay more to his Church than to Washington?
   
   After all, he might spend the afterlife in heaven, but he will never get to live in the White House

   replyreport
   1. 87

      livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Very good point!
      
      I think the issue is not how much money he paid in taxes himself - he played by the rules - but the fact that he has an incentive to perpetuate and even worsen a system that makes him pay far less in taxes as a percentage of his income than people who earn a fraction of what he does. In fact, his tax proposals make this clear:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr … _blog.html
      "Because Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, and his tax plan would lower his tax rate even further."

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "Because Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, and his tax plan would lower his tax rate even further."
         
         That's the problem for Romney and all the other candidates who don't have a glimmer of what the growth in inequality of wealth and income is doing to the country and all of whom have proposed tax changes that would make it worse.

         replyreport
      2. 92

         habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Romney wants to lower capital gains tax on people who make under $200,000 per year, so he wouldn't qualify. Under Newt's tax plan, however, Mitt wouldn't pay any income tax.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Romney's tax plan is not revenue-neutral, never mind revenue-positive, which it'd have to be to solve our deficit problem. It would cost a staggering $6 trillion dollars.

            replyreport
            1. 65

               Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               My impression is that all of the GOP candidates are supporting steps that would increase the income and wealth gap in this country.

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  ...and the deficit.

                  replyreport
               2. 59

                  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  absolutely correct, I dont understand how he can support this.

                  replyreport
               3. 60

                  logic,commonsenseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  No, they are supporting not paying more taxes to a government that does not and will not spend it appropriately.  It is all about rewarding your campaign donors so you can get more money from them to get reelected.
                  The rates are high enough, it's the loopholes that are the problem.  Obama and the Democrats had complete control of Congress and the White House when he took office.  Why didn't they raise taxes and close the loopholes then? Why?  Why didn't they fix all the issues that they claim the Republicans are keeping them from now?  Why?  They had the power, the control, why didn't they fix it all then if they ?  Gutless, leaderless cowards, that's why and deep down, we all know it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     No president wants to come into office and start raising taxes. Especially during a recession.
                     Keeping the Bush tax cuts in place was a gift (concession).
                     Closing loopholes is not as simple as it sounds. And requires cooperation of both sides, in defiance of business.
                     No sir.
                     Seems like a better way to make a splash up front would be something more far-reaching like the Affordable Care Act.

                     replyreport
3. 92

   habeeposted 12 years ago

   Unless Mitt broke the law, I don't care what he did with his money. It's none of my business. I don't want anyone telling me how to spend mine - what little I have. lol
   
   And yes, I support Mitt. You do realize that Obama is a millionaire, too, right?

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Greek Oneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      did they both make their $ on Hubpages?

      replyreport
   2. 60

      warden76posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Quite a difference...one got a payroll check and has about 2 million, the other is worth $250 million, made from "vulture capitalism" of stripping corporations down to nothing, laying off the staff and raiding the pension funds, all under the guise of a 15% capital gains tax...while you paid 28%.

      replyreport
   3. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Gitrich also is a millionaire patron of Tiffany's.

      replyreport
4. 83

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   I think that if they use every possible loophole to dodge tax rather than just pay the rate they are meant to, that is relevant.  Otherwise, I don't care.

   replyreport
5. 75

   Shanna11posted 12 years ago

   Mormons are required to pay 10% of their earnings. That's it. Any more was his own choice and none of our business. Besides, those earnings are used to fund things like storehouses of food and the money is used to support financially unstable Mormons, keeping them off Government assistance. The vast majority of American Mormons don't use food stamps or accept Government money even if they qualify. The tithing that Mormon members pay helps in that. Mormons also have a vast worldwide humanitarian effort and some of the tithing goes into that, or in subsidizing the Mormon university, BYU, which allows thousands of students with financial issues to get a high quality education.

   replyreport
6. 61

   secularist10posted 12 years ago

   Those who say it's "his own business" are missing the point. Romney is the embodiment of everything that is wrong and unfair in this country's tax code. AND he intends to make it worse.
   
   It will be very interesting to see just what American voters' reactions will be when they understand they are paying a greater portion of their income to Uncle Sam than the millionaire asking for their vote.
   
   It is only recently that the absolute inanity and regressiveness of the American tax system has really come into the consciousness of most people.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Shanna11posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think it is his business still, but even as a Mormon I'm not a Romney fan. Not a fan of any of the Republican candidates, really. I think I'm becoming a rare breed of Liberal Mormon or something.
      
      I think if he's making that much, he can certainly afford to be taxed his fair share.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         logic,commonsenseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         He was taxed his fair share when he made the money that he ended up investing.  Now he is being taxed again on the same money, just at a lower rate.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            If it's the same money, then why is there more of it?

            replyreport
         2. 87

            livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Um, no. That's not how it works. You're taxed on income and gains. The "second" time he's being taxed is on the appreciation of value, not the principal.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               So much for "logic and commonsense" lol.

               replyreport
   2. 61

      rcollester3posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ok, but is there any candidate that doesn't have those same characteristics?  Any candidate that doesn't take advantage of the current loopholes?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         No, they all do. But Romney is just an extreme example, an archetype if you will. And he and many others want to make the system even worse and more unfair.

         replyreport
7. 76

   MissEposted 12 years ago

   The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides relief and development projects for humanitarian purposes in countries all over the world. Projects operate without regard to the nationality or religion of the recipients.  They've given $1.3 BILIION dollars in humanitarian aid to countries and people around the world regardless of their religious, economic, social status, or race.  That amount does not include the church welfare it gives to the members of the church that need it.  I give the same percentage.  What of it?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Manly Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That's great. And there was a Mormon "peace corps" before Kennedy's Peace Corps.

      replyreport
   2. 52

      passingthewordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      MissE, you seem like a beautiful person. the LDS church does alot of good but so does the red cross the naacp ect. it does not make them the true word of God. I wish you would read all of my post. I see that i must write a hub.

      replyreport
8. 61

   Daniel Carterposted 12 years ago

   While Romney does contribute to his church, which really amounts to a great deal of it going to philanthropic causes, Gingrich is funding Tiffany's growth and showing a brilliant example of the US Government's encouragement of increasing debt to "stimulate" the economy. As suggested, how anyone spends their money is their business, assuming it's not promoting delinquent causes. Good for Romney for choosing philanthropic causes over funding Uncle Sam's idea of debt management which brilliantly lined the pockets of all the big corporation money machines.
   
   It's pretty apparent to nearly all Americans that the tax laws favor the rich and over tax the rest. It certainly isn't a secret. All the more reason to listen a little more carefully to proposed plans, read candidate platforms, etc. But the caveat will be whether or not the next POTUS has enough power and clout to reign in congress. Unfortunately, Obama's Hope campaign wasn't powerful enough to bring agreement and consensus to the very power hungry congress. So my question remains who is has the skills to bring such consensus to legislators who are mad at America for threatening their jobs? I'm just not sure.

   replyreport
9. 63

   Greek Oneposted 12 years ago

   If I am not mistaken, Newt pays more in alimony to his 27 ex-wives than all American citizens pay in taxes combined

   replyreport
   1. 76

      MissEposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      LOL!!!!!!!!!

      replyreport
10. 62

    Perspycaciousposted 12 years ago

    While Governor of Massachusets he didn't cost the Massachusetts taxpayers anything for salary, he gave it all back to the state.  You bet I respect a guy who does that and who puts sincerity into his faith, pays a generous tithe, doesn't profit from his book when others pour their book profits into their own pockets or campaign, who rescued the Winter Olympics and gave that compensation ($1.4 million) to charity.  Perhaps President Obama did the same charitable donation with his $1 million for his Nobel Peace Prize.  Mitt Romney has a consistent record of charity which Christians call the pure love of Christ.  We could do, and have done, a lot worse when voting for our leaders.  If the media is looking for scandals to sell their papers, I think they have some house cleaning to do first before dipping into their arsenal of stones.

    replyreport
    1. 65

       Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       +++Romney is far preferable to Gingrich. But I'm an Obama supporter.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Hooray for bombing brown people!

          replyreport
    2. 76

       lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       He did not give it back to the state...he made a new position for his friend, and gave him the salary!
       
       What Christian Love?
       He cut funding for poor kids to get glasses and have dental care.....while signing a law for police officers to get a boost in pay for taking cooking classes!
       
       He also refuses to denounce a dirty cop who covered for the sexual abuse by a fellow officer of a teenaged girl.
       
       He cares about Romney and anyone who will further that ego. IMHO. Why is he willing to have war with Iran when none of his 5 sons ever put their lives on the line???

       replyreport
       1. 92

          habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Ummm...Obama never served, either. Are you happy with Mr. Peace Prize's "non wars"?

          replyreport
          1. 76

             lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Democrats never made it an imperative to be president, like the right did. And the R's seem to have forgotten the character issue as well.

             replyreport
11. 83

    Marcy Goodfleischposted 12 years ago

    I completely understand Mitt Romney's dedication to his (our) church. And I don't think it's my business what he pays in taxes, or what any other politician pays.
    
    It sounds like I'm not the only LDS member here . . .

    replyreport
    1. 76

       MissEposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       You are not alone.

       replyreport
       1. 75

          Shanna11posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Haha, there are a couple of us here....

          replyreport
12. 0

    Onusonusposted 12 years ago

    Romney charity givings 2010 and 2011: 7 million
    Income 2010 and 2011: 42 million.
    Avg tax rate 2010 and 2011: 14.5%
    He gave 15% of his earnings to charity. 30 times the average person in his tax bracket.
    
    The way I see it he was obligated to give millions of dollars to a government that can't handle it's own finances, and he gave even more to a church that is far more financially responsible than our government could ever hope to be.

    replyreport
13. 77

    Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

    I can see where this is heading.
    First we criticize Biden for declaring too little on his taxes for charitable giving.
    Now it's all about how much candidates tithed to their churches.
    "My candidate gave 10% and his church does more good stuff around the world than your candidate's church."
    
    If your church requires a 10% tithe as a condition of membership, complying with that requirement does not make you a generous, philanthropic hero. It makes you a member of the church.
    Period.
    And that has no bearing -- plus or minus -- on your ability to serve in government office.
    None.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Agreed

       replyreport
    2. 61

       rcollester3posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Thank you.  Well said.

       replyreport
    3. 0

       JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       It has bearing on a person's character.
       
       Romney chooses to pay the tithing any way you look at it. Paying more than he needs to shows a little about him. Not saying it's everything, but it's something.

       replyreport
    4. 61

       Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       This coming from someone who thinks that paying taxes is a good thing....

       replyreport
14. 65

    Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

    How much is too much??
    
    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/ … f=business

    replyreport
    1. 61

       rcollester3posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       How much is too much?  Are you referring to taxes or tithes.  The answer to that should be obvious.  Taxes certainly have a quantifiable amount as to how much is too much, and I believe we have already reached it.
       
       Paying Tithes or donating to charities or philanthropies, I believe has no quantifiable amount.  Unless it's more than one has.

       replyreport
       1. 76

          lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Churches ought to pay taxes like everybody else!

          replyreport
       2. 65

          Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          You apparently didn't bother reading the linked article. The issue is how much more inequality can our system take before a majority loses faith in our democratic free enterprise system. For the past 30 years there has been a huge redistribution of income from the middle class and poor (the 99%) to the 1% or .1 percent super rich. None of the GOP candidates have shown the slightest recognition of this fact. All are proposing changes in taxation that would increase the disparity of income and wealth in this country.

          replyreport
15. 61

    rcollester3posted 12 years ago

    Perhaps the real problem is that this Federal Government of ours has far too many social, infrastructural, and administrative costs.  Perhaps we have come to expect and demand far too much from this Federal Government.  Perhaps if you got rid of so many of the social and infrastructural costs the administrative costs would hugely decrease as well.   I like so many others don't mind a bit paying our fair share to finance the federal government.  The problem is that we are forced to pay a "fair share" to cover social and infrastructural and therefore administrative costs that we neither desire or require. 
    
    You keep pointing to the wealthy and ultra-wealthy, as if you feel they are cheating you out of something.  You keep saying that their "fair share" is far too low.  Why don't you take advantage of the same tax benefits they are and reduce your tax burden down to be equal with theirs. 
    
    That is the truth of it isn't it.  It's not really that they are paying to little.   It's that you are paying too much.  Why don't you organize your life so you can pay less, just as many others have.

    replyreport
    1. 87

       livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Maybe. The problem is that the vast majority of people who make this argument (Republicans) seem to forget how huge of a chunk is spent on the military (over $1 trillion), and things like the $1 trillion Medicare reform.
       
       It makes complaining $60 billion for infrastructural improvements look like an exercise in numerical illiteracy.

       replyreport
    2. 87

       livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I'm afraid the middle class doesn't have nearly the amount of political power as the ultra-wealthy. I'm sure that most people would happily trade places with your average billionaire.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          logic,commonsenseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          You are correct, and when they became billionaires, they would act the same way as billionaires do now.  Billionaires are the same as us only willing to work harder and risk more to get there.  Oh, that, and they have billions!

          replyreport
          1. 87

             livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Absolutely agreed on the first point. Billionaires are people, with the same good, bad, greedy, and generous impulses as other people.
             
             On the second: So a billionaire has worked 10,000 times harder than a person who has made $100,000 over the course of their working life?

             replyreport
             1. 61

                rcollester3posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Worked 10,000 times harder? Maybe, maybe not.  Learned to leverage their efforts and skills 10,000 times more effectively?  Yes.

                replyreport
                1. 87

                   livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   Not just efforts and skills. If it were only that, billionaires could replicate their success anywhere, including Somalia.

                   replyreport
    3. 59

       mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I have an idea.
       
       Let's go equal. straight across the board, whether you make 10 bucks a year or 100 bucks a year, everybody pays the same, say 20% on their earnings.
       
       This would be fair and balanced any way you wanna slice it.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Oh,
          
          when we go to the grocery store to buy our groceries, the prices we pay, are based on the "upper average" income bracket for that area. This folks, is unfair, but what's the solution?

          replyreport
       2. 61

          rcollester3posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          My idea of fair would be, not a straight 20% across the board on earnings.  But, rather a straight 20% across the board on your purchases of consumer products.

          replyreport
       3. 76

          lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Well, let's go equal in pay then!
          We all make the same pay...$57,000 a day! I could live on that.
          And make sure ghetto schools are equal to suburban schools.
          And the neighborhoods must be equal.
          And the quality of air and water...those coal plants are mighty toxic..let's put one in Belmont!
          
          see where this gets? It's not equal to begin with....so why should the taxes be?

          replyreport
          1. 59

             mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this

             LMC,
             
             We are not saying that the average person pay the same dollar amount.
             Just the same percentage on what one earns.
             
             Rcollester3, made the suggestion to pay an equal tax on purchases bought.
             
             This sounds like it would be a tax, in addition to, the straight across the board percentage of tax paid on earnings.

             replyreport
16. 61

    rcollester3posted 12 years ago

    No, not an additional tax.  A replacement tax.  I would like to see the tax on all consumer goods purchases replace the income tax.

    replyreport